Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “POISON CONTROL CENTERS”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1995

Health care cost effects of public use of a regional poison control center.

Poison control centers in the United States are threatened with closure, and attempts at a cost-benefit analysis of these services have been indeterminate. The purpose of this study was to compare the operating costs of a regional poison control center resulting from public use of its telephone hotline services with those of hypothetical alternative sources of advice and care. We conducted a follow-up telephone survey among 589 public callers to the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Poison Control Center who had been managed at home without medical referral after an unintentional poisoning. All survey respondents were asked what alternative action they would have taken had the poison control center not been available to assist them by telephone consultation. We then surveyed emergency departments and physicians' offices cited as alternatives by the callers to determine their response and charges for evaluating a suspected poisoning case. A total of 464 (79%) of the callers surveyed would have sought assistance from their local emergency health care system had the poison control center not been available. We conservatively estimated that the total charges for such evaluations would be +71,900. Comparatively, the total actual operating cost of services provided by the poison control center for all 589 poisoning cases was +13,547. Most of the study subjects (429 [73%]) had private insurance coverage. Direct public access to these services probably reduces the use of emergency health care resources, thus lowering health care costs.

Emergency Service, Hospital↗
PubMed2006

2005 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' national poisoning and exposure database.

BACKGROUND: The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC; http://www.aapcc.org ) maintains the national database of information logged by the country's 61 Poison Control Centers (PCCs). Case records in this database are from self-reported calls: they reflect only information provided when the public or healthcare professionals report an actual or potential exposure to a substance (e.g., an ingestion, inhalation, or topical exposure.), or request information/educational materials. Exposures do not necessarily represent a poisoning or overdose. The AAPCC is not able to completely verify the accuracy of every report made to member centers. Additional exposures may go unreported to PCCs, and data referenced from the AAPCC should not be construed to represent the complete incidence of national exposures to any substance(s). U.S. Poison Centers make possible the compilation and reporting of this report through their staffs' meticulous documentation of each case using standardized definitions and compatible computer systems. The 61 participating poison centers in 2005 are: Regional Poison Control Center, Birmingham, AL; Alabama Poison Center, Tuscaloosa, AL; Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center, Tucson, AZ; Banner Poison Control Center, Phoenix, AZ; Arkansas Poison and Drug Information Center, Little Rock, AK; California Poison Control System-Fresno/Madera Division, CA; California Poison Control System-Sacramento Division, CA; California Poison Control System-San Diego Division, CA; California Poison Control System-San Francisco Division, CA; Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver, CO; Connecticut Poison Control Center, Farmington, CT; National Capital Poison Center, Washington, DC; Florida Poison Information Center, Tampa, FL; Florida Poison Information Center, Jacksonville, FL; Florida Poison Information Center, Miami, FL; Georgia Poison Center, Atlanta, GA; Illinois Poison Center, Chicago, IL; Indiana Poison Center, Indianapolis, IN; Iowa Statewide Poison Control Center, Sioux City, IA; Mid-America Poison Control Center, Kansas City, KA; Kentucky Regional Poison Center, Louisville, KY; Louisiana Drug and Poison Information Center, Monroe, LA; Northern New England Poison Center, Portland, ME; Maryland Poison Center, Baltimore, MD; Regional Center for Poison Control and Prevention Serving Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Boston, MA; Children's Hospital of Michigan Regional Poison Control Center, Detroit, MI; DeVos Children's Hospital Regional Poison Center, Grand Rapids, MI; Hennepin Regional Poison Center, Minneapolis, MN; Mississippi Regional Poison Control Center, Jackson, MS; Missouri Regional Poison Center, St Louis, MO; Nebraska Regional Poison Center, Omaha, NE; New Jersey Poison Information and Education System, Newark, NJ; New Mexico Poison and Drug Information Center, Albuquerque, NM; New York City Poison Control Center, New York, NY; Long Island Regional Poison and Drug Information Center, Mineola, NY; Ruth A. Lawrence Poison and Drug Information Center, Rochester, NY; Upstate (formerly Central) New York Poison Center, Syracuse, NY; Western New York Poison Center, Buffalo, NY; Carolinas Poison Center, Charlotte, NC; Cincinnati Drug and Poison Information Center, Cincinnati, OH; Central Ohio Poison Center, Columbus, OH; Greater Cleveland Poison Control Center, Cleveland, OH; Oklahoma Poison Control Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Oregon Poison Center, Portland, OR; Pittsburgh Poison Center, Pittsburgh, PA; The Poison Control Center, Philadelphia, PA; Puerto Rico Poison Center, San Juan, PR; Palmetto Poison Center, Columbia, SC; Tennessee Poison Center, Nashville, TN; Central Texas Poison Center, Temple, TX; North Texas Poison Center, Dallas, TX; Southeast Texas Poison Center, Galveston, TX; Texas Panhandle Poison Center, Amarillo, TX; West Texas Regional Poison Center, El Paso, TX; South Texas Poison Center, San Antonio, TX; Utah Poison Control Center, Salt Lake City, UT; Virginia Poison Center, Richmond, VA; Blue Ridge Poison Center, Charlottesville, VA; Washington Poison Center, Seattle, WA; West Virginia Poison Center, Charleston, WV; Wisconsin Poison Center, Milwaukee, WI.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed1978

One year's experience in a regional poison control center: The Intermountain Regional Poison Control Center.

The Intermountain Regional Poison Control Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, has served as a regional poison center since 1971. Between 1972 and 1976 the call load has more than tripled, with the highest frequency of calls per population coming from counties most proximate to the center. Two-thirds of the cases involve children age five or less, with 18 or over being the next large group. Adolescents and school-age children comprised the smallest group of cases. Two predominant types of poisonings were encountered: accidental ingestions of toxic substances in children and intentional self-poisonings in adults, but the poison center handled almost every conceivable type of poisoning or toxic situation. A detailed analysis of the center's overall experience as well as these two major categories is presented.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Cost-effectiveness of regional poison control centers.

BACKGROUND: Poison exposures are a significant public health concern. Despite the impact that regional poison control centers have on reducing morbidity and mortality associated with poison exposures, they are facing a serious financial crisis today resulting in an increased emphasis on their economic justification. METHODS: Using decision-analysis techniques, the cost-effectiveness of the treatment of poison exposures with the services of a regional poison control center compared with treatment without access to any poison control center was evaluated. The relative cost-effectiveness was modeled based on 2 outcomes (morbidity and mortality) for each of 4 typical poison exposures. Additionally, analyses were conducted to test the sensitivity of the cost-effectiveness ratios to outcome probability, average inpatient and emergency department costs, and proportion of poison exposures treated on site by the regional poison control center. A societal perspective was adopted. RESULTS: The regional poison control center was substantially more cost-effective than the treatment of poison exposures without the services of a regional poison control center for both outcomes (morbidity and mortality) in each of the poison exposures considered. The results of the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the outcomes of the decision analyses do not change regardless of the type of poison exposure, outcome considered, clinical outcome probabilities, average inpatient and emergency department costs, and proportion of poison-exposure cases treated on site by a regional poison control center. CONCLUSIONS: The regional poison control center is consistently more cost-effective in the treatment of poison exposures with an average cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per successful outcome) approximately half of that achieved without the services of a regional poison control center. Finally, significant cost savings to society are realized for each additional successful outcome obtained with a regional poison control center.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed1990

A model system for occupational disease surveillance activities applying Centers for Disease Control guidelines to poison control centers.

Each year, poison control centers (PCCs) receive more than 25,000 calls related to workplace exposures to hazardous substances. Recent studies indicate that each caller may be a sentinel contact representing other exposed or ill workers. Although PCCs traditionally focus their follow-up efforts on the treatment of the index case alone, with minimal attention to the public health implications of other exposed or ill workers, PCCs could serve as a national surveillance system for occupational illnesses, a system with both passive and active attributes.

Hazardous Substances↗
PubMed2000

A method for detecting current temporal clusters of toxic events through data monitoring by poison control centers.

BACKGROUND: Poison control centers have become a widely recognized source of data for chemical and other environmental exposures. Concurrently, increased emphasis on early identification of temporal clustering of toxic exposures has stimulated development of sensitive statistical methods to detect clusters at the time of occurrence. METHOD: This paper discusses the scan test which has been applied to retrospective data to detect carbon monoxide poisoning clusters. We propose a more sensitive method, based on the binomial distribution to detect current clusters of only 1 or more days duration during the ongoing data collection and monitoring process. RESULTS: Applied to daily carbon monoxide poisoning incidence data on which the scan test has been applied, the new test for current clustering evidently has much more power. For retrospective identification of previous clusters lasting more than 1 day, the scan test is recommended. However, for previous daily clusters, a third method is recommended. CONCLUSION: Certain toxic events such as carbon monoxide poisoning occasionally occur in daily clusters, or in clusters lasting a few days. Timely detection of clusters requires application of early intervention strategies fostered by sensitive statistical methods of detection, as presented here.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning↗
PubMed1988

American poison control centers: still not all the same?

Although poison control centers meeting the criteria for certification by the American Association of Poison Control Centers as regional centers are widely believed to differ from centers not meeting these criteria, this assumption has not recently been validated. We surveyed all poison control centers listed in the Emergency Medicine 1986 directory of poison control centers or in the 1986 American Association of Poison Control Centers membership directory regarding their operations. Of 208 poison control centers listed, 167 (80.2%) responded; 28 of 35 regional poison control centers (80.0%) responded, as did 139 of 173 nonregional poison control centers (80.3%). The median annual call volume was 3,899 for all centers. For regional poison control centers, the median was 44,429, and for nonregional poison control centers, 1,553 (P less than .001). There also were highly significant differences in population served, call volume per capita, center staffing, medical direction, staff orientation, and follow-up protocols.

Poison Control Centers↗